The US Should Arm Iranian Protesters

Protest in Kermanshah, Iran, 29 December 2017, photo sent by a protester to VOA News, retrieved via Wikimedia Commons

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 711, January 9, 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Rhetorical support for the Iranian protesters in their quest for freedom is not enough. The US, with the help of its allies, including Israel, must work 24/7 to provide – at the most opportune moment – arms and the knowhow to use them to the protesters against the regime. The time to act will be when casualties of the regime can be identified as coming from a broad spectrum of the Iranian public.

Commentators and experts have lauded President Trump and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley for their clear rhetorical support for the Iranian protesters in their quest for freedom. Some have urged the US to provide information platforms to the protesters to circumvent the blockage of new media by the authorities.

While this would be helpful, it is hardly sufficient. The US, with the help of its allies, including Israel, must work around the clock to provide arms and the knowhow to use them to the Iranian protesters.

It should be clear why this is the case. The Iranian regime is as ruthless as they come and will commit any kind of atrocity against the protesters if it believes itself to be in danger – indeed, even well short of such a threat. It would be utterly cynical and self-defeating were the US and others to encourage the protesters without planning how they can defend themselves and bring down the regime.

For arms to be effectively provided, protesters who can use them have to be identified and contacted, and supply networks have to be built. These must be tailored to meet the needs of a variegated group of people operating in different environments. Some will be engaged in urban warfare, others in hit-and-run ambushes on the country’s roads and rail lines across the country, and still others as hit squads to assassinate regime officials and security personnel in a bid to turn the hunters into the hunted.

In areas inhabited by minorities, such as the Kurds or the Arabs in the country’s southwest, efforts should be expended to conduct guerrilla operations. Heating up the country’s periphery, where these minorities live, will do much to reduce the heat on the urban fighters who will carry the brunt of the fighting in meeting the primary strategic goal of the armed conflict – taking over and maintaining their hold on Tehran.

These protesters-turned-freedom fighters will have to be given intelligence as well, which will impose the arduous task of making sure that both the arms and the intelligence flow to the genuine opposition rather than into the hands of state agents.

At some point, this aid will have to be buttressed by much tougher sanctions to the point of a blockade on the country’s ports or flight zones. Such sanctions will no doubt impose tremendous hardship on the Iranian people, but will also drive home the point that the maintenance of the regime is untenable and the quicker it is removed the quicker there will be the relief. Such a realization will, one hopes, induce many to give aid and shelter to the fighters.

Planning and creating a rudimentary network to provide arms and intelligence should have started in 2009. If it was not begun then, it must begin now.

Creating a rebellion is all about coalition-building. A massive coalition of disparate groups brought down the Shah in 1978, and only a broad coalition of forces will bring down the ayatollahs today. Relying on the westernized, more secular upper middle class in the universities or the better neighborhoods of Tehran will not be sufficient.

Moving too early might alienate the conservative and nationalist majority and play into the hands of government propaganda. Moving too slowly will facilitate regime efforts to crush the opposition.

The time to act will be when casualties of the regime mount and can be identified as coming from a broad, urban to rural spectrum of the Iranian public, which will be likely to spur an equally variegated and broad public response of mourning and protest.

The US and its democratic allies face two dangers in treading this road – false moral qualms and the fear of failure.

There can be no qualms over these operations. Few entities in the past half-century have caused as much harm and pain as the ayatollah regime – against the hostages at the US embassy in Tehran; against the Marines whose barracks were bombed in Lebanon – the second biggest terror attack in US history after 9/11; and against the Jewish Center in Argentina and subsequently the Israeli embassy, both of which were targeted by Iranian terror. Iran is also responsible for the creation of Hezbollah, currently under investigation for running a billion dollar drug distribution ring. Removing the regime or even denting its power would be a boon to the region and the world.

Should doubts intrude, consider the prospect of this regime growing into a North Korean nuclear duplicate, with far greater resources and greater proximity to both the US and Europe.

The second form of remorse is over failure. The effort might fail, with bloody consequences for the opposition. But that failure would be only temporary. Just as this wave succeeded the one that surged a decade ago, another will follow.

The message must be that the regime of the ayatollahs is doomed. The cue is from Winston Churchill. Evil will be defeated.

Prof. Hillel Frisch is a professor of political studies and Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. Email: [email protected]

Featured Articles

Moderate leaders warn that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may turn from a national conflict into a religious one. Right-wing leaders claim it has been a religious conflict from the start. Both approaches have been applied to the Temple Mount crisis, and both are affected by a totalist perception of the understanding of the religious imperative.

The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.

North Korea’s nuclearization has implications for Israel’s nuclear deterrence posture. There are several plausible means by which a nuclear conflict could arise in the Middle East. It may be time to consider a phase-out of Israel’s “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” and to focus Israeli planning around evaluations of enemy rationality.

Former PM Ehud Barak’s arguments in favor of withdrawal from Judea and Samaria undercut Israel’s security and are a departure from the Oslo Accords’ security vision. Israel would be wise to present President Trump with actual facts on this issue.

Many American detractors of Israel begin by citing that Israel receives the lion’s share of US military aid. The very suggestion conjures the demon of an all-powerful Israel lobby that has turned the US Congress into its pawn. But these figures, while reflecting official direct US military aid, are almost meaningless in comparison to the real costs and benefits of US military aid – above all, American boots on the ground. In reality, Israel receives only a small fraction of American military aid, and most of that was spent in the US to the benefit of the American economy.

The Oslo diplomatic process is the starkest strategic blunder in Israel’s history and one of the worst calamities ever to have afflicted Israelis and Palestinians. Twenty three years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn, the Oslo ‘peace process’ has substantially worsened the position of both parties, and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation ever more remote.